18-07-2016, 10:17 AM
I agree that a multilingual context would be the best (only?) way to explain someone writing marginalia in a language he doesn't master. Moreover, a multicultural environment is not unlikely given the VM's nature.
This would imply that the note can't be a spell or charm, but must be an instruction, remark or other message meant for another person. "X gave me Y to take" seems to argue against it being an instruction or remark about the text.
Now word order is something all native speakers can do automatically. They will never mess it up like this. So if we must assume someone who was not used to the language, then why assume that he used contemporary spelling? Spelling conventions hardly existed for the vernacular, and people would generally spell according to pronunciation: write it the way you say it. While pronunciation (and hence spelling) and vocabulary vary across dialects, word order is fairly stable.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is: if we must assume a deviant word order, we must almost automatically assume deviant spelling and vocabulary as well. With all due consequences...
This would imply that the note can't be a spell or charm, but must be an instruction, remark or other message meant for another person. "X gave me Y to take" seems to argue against it being an instruction or remark about the text.
Now word order is something all native speakers can do automatically. They will never mess it up like this. So if we must assume someone who was not used to the language, then why assume that he used contemporary spelling? Spelling conventions hardly existed for the vernacular, and people would generally spell according to pronunciation: write it the way you say it. While pronunciation (and hence spelling) and vocabulary vary across dialects, word order is fairly stable.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is: if we must assume a deviant word order, we must almost automatically assume deviant spelling and vocabulary as well. With all due consequences...